DOCSLIB.ORG

SEI Working Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SEI Working Paper WP-US-1008 Considerations of Global Equity and Burden-Sharing in Community-Scale Climate Action Planning Peter Erickson, Chelsea Chandler, and Michael Lazarus, SEI December, 2010 Stockholm Environment Institute Working Paper WP-US-1008 Abstract Cities around the world have been leaders in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and many have adopted pledges to cut emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. However, while the goal of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 may be considered very ambitious in terms of the required policies, technologies and actions to achieve it, it may no longer represent an adequate target in terms of confronting the risks of climate change. Furthermore, when applied at a community scale, such goals do not consider the UNFCCC principle of ―common but differentiated responsibility‖ that places greater burden on developed countries to finance and deliver emission reductions. In setting emissions goals, we suggest that communities consider ―burden-sharing‖ approaches that consider historic responsibility and capacity to pay for emissions reductions. To demonstrate the feasibility of such approaches, we apply one burden-sharing framework – the Greenhouse Development Rights – to the City of Seattle, which indicates that to fulfill a global mitigation obligation the community would need to go carbon ―negative‖ before 2020 and progressively more so thereafter. Communities can serve as laboratories for testing replicable models for widespread (e.g., national) adoption. We recommend that further research and pilots explore the mechanics of establishing equity-based community climate goals and the associated financing mechanisms. Global Burden-Sharing in Community-scale Climate Action Planning WP-US-1008 Copyright © 2010 by the Stockholm Environment Institute This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes, without special permission from the copyright holder(s) provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purpose, without the written permission of the copyright holder(s). For more information about this document, Contact [email protected]. Stockholm Environment Institute - US 11 Curtis Avenue Somerville, MA 02144-1224, USA www.sei-us.org and www.sei.se Acknowledgements This report was prepared with funding from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency via SEI’s Core project funding. We thank Tom Athanasiou, Paul Baer, and our SEI colleagues Sivan Kartha, Eric Kemp-Benedict, and Anja Kollmuss for helpful review of early drafts of this paper. 2 Global Burden-Sharing in Community-scale Climate Action Planning WP-US-1008 Introduction and Background Many cities have been leaders in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, in much of the last decade (2000-10), when national U.S. leadership on climate was severely lacking, actions by states and cities built momentum for climate policy and action at regional and national levels. Around the world, hundreds of cities have adopted aggressive pledges to cut emissions. Many of those pledges have been in line with a global target of 80% reduction in greenhouse gases (compared to 1990 levels) by 2050. Cities that have so far been leaders in the effort to address climate change are now pondering ―what next‖, especially given the slow pace of action at the national (e.g., US) and international (e.g., UNFCCC) levels. For example, the City of Seattle, a city that has long been a leader in climate action and where this paper’s authors are based, is considering a more ambitious goal.1 In early 2010, the Seattle City Council announced an intention to explore making the city ―carbon neutral‖, and the City is planning to update its climate action plan in 2011. Indeed, the state of knowledge and discourse has advanced somewhat since Seattle and other communities committed to goals of ―80% by 2050.‖ Scientists and politicians alike have helped articulate a growing consensus that the earth’s mean temperature should not exceed 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial level if the earth is to maintain a safe operating space for humanity.2 More recently, many scientists have suggested that a safe operating space might require staying within a 1.5 degrees C increase, and many climate-vulnerable nations have endorsed such a goal. To attain such goals, scientists and civil society are calling for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to be ultimately stabilized at 350 parts per million (ppm).3 Attaining this level would require a dramatic and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC Fourth Assessment report suggested that even a 450ppm CO2 equivalent trajectory (roughly 400 ppm CO2 alone), which would have a less than 50% probability of achieving a 2 degree C target would require reductions from developed countries on the order of 80-95% from 1990 levels by 2050.4 Therefore, while the goal of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 may be considered very ambitious in terms of the required policies, technologies and actions to achieve it, it may no longer represent an adequate target in terms of confronting the risks of climate change. Additional scientific assessments have further refined what future global emissions pathways could limit warming to 2 degrees C over pre-industrial levels with reasonable confidence. For example, the following figure, taken from the German Advisory Council on Global Change, charts out different possible global CO2 emissions pathways that could limit warming to 2 degrees C. Note that the longer 1 The City of Seattle has long pioneered efforts to address climate change, from the City-owned electric utility’s commitment to net zero emissions to the City’s official goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2005, Seattle mayor Greg Nickels launched the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection initiative to convince other cities to adopt Kyoto protocol targets at the city scale. Over 1,000 mayors around the country have now signed the pledge, with many also including a goal to reduce emissions in their communities by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. 2 For an assessment of the ―reasons for concern‖ associated with warming of 2 degrees, see Smith et al (2009), http://www.pnas.org.ezproxy.library.tufts.edu/content/106/11/4133.abstract. The 2 degree target was also noted by signers of the Copenhagen Accord. 3 For a summary of the reasons for a 350 ppm target, see Rockstrom et al (2009). 4See Box 13.7, page 776, of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group III Report (Metz et al. 2007). http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf 3 Global Burden-Sharing in Community-scale Climate Action Planning WP-US-1008 global action is delayed and emissions continue to rise, the faster and deeper the ultimate pathway must be – perhaps to zero globally. 5 Figure 1. Examples of Alternative Global Emissions Pathways to Meet 2° C “Guardrail” (WBGU 2009)6 While Figure 1 illustrates global emissions pathways for achieving a 2 degree target, it does not speak to ―common but differentiated responsibilities‖, a guiding principle of the UNFCCC that places greater burden on developed countries to finance and deliver emission reductions. From a pragmatic as well as moral perspective, the emissions pathway for wealthier regions would need to be even more ambitious than the global pathway shown above. The United States, with a per capita emissions rate that is more than three times higher than China and more than ten times higher than India, for example, would be obliged to curb its emissions more rapidly than these countries, which are still trying to extend basic energy services to hundreds of millions of their underserved population. ―Burden sharing‖ approaches assert that, to be consistent with the ―common but differentiated responsibilities‖ principles of the UNFCCC, relatively prosperous countries have obligations not only to adopt their own ambitious emissions reduction goals, but also to provide financial and technological support to countries or communities with significantly less historical contribution to global emissions and limited capacity to pay for reduction actions (UNFCCC 2009; Baer et al. 2008; WBGU 2009; Chakravarty et al. 2009). The same logic can also be applied to communities. After all, countries are made up of hundreds or thousands of communities, emissions reductions goals will inevitably play out 5The goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius was also recognized at the Major Economies Forum in July 2009. Note also that a country’s reductions, and the financial responsibility for those reductions, need not be the same. For example, some discussions have focused on payments or other form of financing from developed countries to developed countries to support ―nationally appropriate mitigation actions‖ in those countries. 6 These scenarios were constructed to limit global CO2 emissions to 750 Gt between 2010 and 2050, a level that is believed to yield a 67% chance of averting warming of 2 degrees over pre-industrial levels. 4 Global Burden-Sharing in Community-scale Climate Action Planning WP-US-1008 at the community scale, and (as noted above), communities are increasingly adopting and planning for achievement of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Yet little research has explored how to apply burden-sharing approaches at the sub-national (including community) scale. In our view, sub- national regions remain (as they have been in the last decade) important laboratories for climate policy development, especially because these regions continue to push the frontier by adopting ever more- ambitious emissions goals. Including elements of burden-sharing in these regions’ goals could help set the stage for broader discussions of equity and create replicable models for national adoption. Therefore, in this paper, we describe the potential application of a burden-sharing framework to the community scale, using the City of Seattle as an example.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tyndall Centre Briefing Note 40
    Review of the Fourth Carbon Budget - Call for Evidence www.theccc.org.uk/call-for-evidence Question and Response form When responding please provide answers that are as specific and evidence-based as possible, providing data and references to the extent possible. Please limit your response to a maximum of 400 words per question. Questions for consideration: A. Climate Science and International Circumstances The Committee’s advice assumes a climate objective to limit central estimates of temperature rise to as close to 2C as possible, with a very low chance of exceeding 4C by 2100 (henceforth referred to as “the climate objective”). This is broadly similar to the UNFCCC climate objective, and that of the EU. In order to achieve this objective, global emissions would have to peak in the next few years, before decreasing to roughly half of recent levels by 2050 and falling further thereafter. The UNFCCC is working toward a global deal consistent with such reductions, to be agreed by 2015. Earlier attempts (e.g. at Copenhagen in 2009, before the fourth budget was recommended or legislated) have failed to achieve a comprehensive global deal to limit emissions. It is difficult to imagine a global deal which allows developed countries to have emissions per capita in 2050 which are significantly above a sustainable global average, implying the need for emissions reductions in the UK of at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. The EU has not yet agreed a package beyond 2020, but the European Commission is consulting on a range of issues relating to development of climate and energy targets for 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Scenario Analysis in Disclosure of Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities
    Technical Supplement The Use of Scenario Analysis in Disclosure of Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities June 2017 Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure i Contents A Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1 B Scenario Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Why is Scenario Analysis Useful? ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. What Is a Scenario? ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 3. How are Organizations Using Climate-Related Scenario Analysis? ........................................................................ 3 C Developing and Applying Scenario Analysis ............................................................................................... 4 1. Considerations for Building Climate Change into Scenario Analysis ..................................................................... 5 2. Analytical Choices in Scenario Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 8 3. Tools and Data ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Creating a National Citizen Engagement Process for Energy Policy
    Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy Nick Pidgeona,1, Christina Demskia, Catherine Butlerb, Karen Parkhillc, and Alexa Spenced aUnderstanding Risk Research Group, Tyndall Centre and Climate Change Consortium of Wales, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Wales CF10 3AT, United Kingdom; bGeography Department, The University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, United Kingdom; cSchool of Environment, Natural Resources, and Geography, Bangor University, Wales LL57 2UW, United Kingdom; and dHorizon Digital Economy Research and School of Psychology, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2TU, United Kingdom Edited by Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, and accepted by the Editorial Board June 12, 2014 (received for review December 11, 2013) This paper examines some of the science communication chal- involved and on the promise and perils of scientific progress. In lenges involved when designing and conducting public delibera- this respect people often focus less on the technology or science tion processes on issues of national importance. We take as our per se, than on the social context within which it is to be illustrative case study a recent research project investigating deployed, including complex arguments about the regulatory or public values and attitudes toward future energy system change governance conditions surrounding the application of science. for the United Kingdom. National-level issues such as this are However, designing successful deliberative fora is not a simple often particularly difficult to engage the public with because of matter, and in this paper we outline a series of interlinked sci- their inherent complexity, derived from multiple interconnected ence communication challenges associated with conducting elements and policy frames, extended scales of analysis, and public deliberation on national-level topics.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages �
    Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages � E. Lisa F. Schipper July 2007 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 107 Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages E. Lisa F. Schipper Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK and South East Asia START Regional Centre Bangkok, Thailand Email: [email protected] Tyndall Centre Working Paper No.107 July 2007 Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are commented on by Tyndall researchers, they have not been subject to a full peer review. The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre. Manuscript has also been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal 1 Summary Successful human societies are characterised by their adaptability, evidenced throughout human existence. However, climate change introduces a new challenge, not only because of the expected rise in temperature and sea-levels, but also due to the current context of failure to address the causes of poverty adequately. As a result, policy supporting adaptation has been cast as a necessary strategy for responding to both climate change and supporting development, making adaptation the focus of much recent scholarly and policy research. This paper addresses this new adaptation discourse, arguing that work on adaptation so far has focused on responding to the impacts of climate change, rather than sufficiently addressing the underlying factors that cause vulnerability. While there is a significant push all around for adaptation to be better placed in development planning, the paper finds this to be putting the cart before the horse.
    [Show full text]
  • No2nuclearpower 1 1. Sellafield
    No2NuclearPower No.59 February 2014 1. Sellafield - poor progress, missed targets, escalating costs, slipping deadlines and weak leadership 2. Plutonium – no clear strategy 3. European Commission State Aid Investigation 4. European Targets 5. Horizon – GDA 6. NuGen – an AP1000 in 4 years? 7. Day of the Jellyfish 8. NDA’s intermediate-level waste plans 9. Waste Transport 10. ECO disaster 11. Solar Prospects 12. Nuclear Innovation nuClear news No.59, February 2014 1 No2NuclearPower 1. Sellafield - poor progress, missed targets, escalating costs, slipping deadlines and weak leadership Nuclear Management Partners – the consortium overseeing the clean-up of Sellafield – should have their contract terminated if performance does not improve, says Margaret Hodge, Chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The bill for cleaning up Sellafield has risen to more than £70bn, according to a report from the public accounts committee. A new report (1) from the Committee says progress has been poor, with missed targets, escalating costs, slipping deadlines and weak leadership. The MPs made a series of recommendations focusing on the role of Nuclear Management Partners (NMP). The report concluded that the consortium was to blame for many of the escalating costs and the MPs said they could not understand why the NDA extended the consortium's contract last October. (2) Damning criticism of the consortium was also revealed in a series of hostile letters written by John Clarke, head of the NDA. Mr Clarke accused Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) of undermining confidence and damaging the entire project’s reputation, as well as criticising Tom Zarges, the consortium chairman, of setting “unduly conservative” targets.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of Communicating Unwelcome Climate Messages
    The challenge of communicating unwelcome climate messages Dr Tim Rayner & Mr Asher Minns November 2015 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 162 The challenge of communicating unwelcome climate messages The Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia Tim Rayner - University of East Anglia [email protected] Asher Minns - University of East Anglia [email protected] Tyndall Working Paper 162, November 2015 Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are commented on by Tyndall researchers, they have not been subject to a full peer review. The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre. Tyndall Working Paper The Challenge of Communicating Unwelcome Climate Messages Tim Rayner Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia Asher Minns Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia Contents Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction: What unwelcome messages do we have to convey? ................................................... 4 2. To which ‘audiences’ are these unwelcome messages most relevant? ............................................. 7 3. The risks and opportunities of communicating
    [Show full text]
  • The UKERC/UKCCSC CARBON CAPTURE and STORAGE ROADMAP
    The UKERC/UKCCSC CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE ROADMAP nd Workshop Report, 1-2 May 2007 Prepared and organised by: Clair Gough Sarah Mander [email protected] UKCCSC / Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester Stuart Haszeldine [email protected] UK Energy Research Centre Jane Palmer UKERC Meeting Place, University of Oxford www.ukerc.ac.uk www.co2storage.org.uk www.tyndall.manchester.ac.uk/ Carbon Capture & Storage Road-Mapping Workshop 1st-2nd May 2007, Salisbury Green Hotel, Edinburgh 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 2. Key Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 5 3. Convenors Comments ..................................................................................................10 4. Roadmapping workshop process ....................................................................................12 4.1 Introduction - Stuart Haszeldine (University of Edinburgh) ...........................................12 4.2 Technical survey: Clair Gough (Tyndall Centre, The University of Manchester).................12 4.3 Road-mapping process: Sarah Mander (Tyndall Centre, The University of Manchester) .....13 5. Break-out group summaries..........................................................................................17 5.1. Summary of Station A: What climate change framework is required to support CCS deployment? ...............................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear News
    No.12 November 2009 nuClear news NuClear News No.12 November 2009 1. Nuclear National Policy Statement Late 2. Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) 3. Feed-in disaster 4. Risks of something serious happening are far too high. 5. Offshore Wind – Round Three 6. Radioactive Waste problem solved? – as if! 7. Low Level Waste Dump Proliferation 8. Carbon floor price 9. Reactor design problems 10. Reactor costs 11. Pay-as-you-save Clear news 1. Nuclear National Policy Statement Late At a Labour Party Conference fringe event, Martin O’Neil, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, criticised the Government for the time it has taken to publish its Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS). “There should have been a national policy statement on nuclear and energy by the end of July so the proper consultative process could take place before the events of April and May,” he said referring to the impending election. It now appears to be accepted in Whitehall that the Nuclear NPS will not be ‘designated’ before the General Election. (1) Climate change minister David Kidney told a CBI conference in October the Nuclear NPS will be published in early November. The NPS, which will be released for consultation, will list potential sites for new reactors. It is designed to give utilities an indication of the legislative framework they will have to comply with in planning new reactors. (2) Meanwhile, a third potential nuclear operator has entered the market, taking total proposals for new reactors up to 16GW. A consortium of GDF Suez, Iberdrola and Scottish and Southern Energy has secured an option to purchase land at Sellafield.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Mitigation and Adaptation Into Climate and Development Policy: Three Research Questions Richard J.T
    Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 579–588 www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions Richard J.T. Klein a,b,*, E. Lisa F. Schipper c,d,e, Suraje Dessai d,e a Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, P.O. Box 601203, 14412 Potsdam, Germany b Stockholm Environment Institute–Oxford, 266 Banbury Road, Suite 193, Oxford OX2 7DL, UK c International Water Management Institute, P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka d School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Abstract The potential for developing synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation has become a recent focus of both climate research and policy. Presumably the interest in synergies springs from the appeal of creating win–win situations by implementing a single climate policy option. However, institutional complexity, insufficient opportunities and uncertainty surrounding their efficiency and effectiveness present major challenges to the widespread development of synergies. There are also increasing calls for research to define the optimal mix of mitigation and adaptation. These calls are based on the misguided assumption that there is one single optimal mix of adaptation and mitigation options for all possible scenarios of climate and socio-economic change, notwithstanding uncertainty and irrespective of the diversity of values and preferences in society. In the face of current uncertainty, research is needed to provide guidance on how to develop a socially and economically justifiable mix of mitigation, adaptation and development policy, as well as on which elements would be part of such a mix.
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping the Lights On: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change
    House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Keeping the lights on: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change Sixth Report of Session 2005–06 Volume II Oral and Written Evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed Tuesday 28 March 2006 HC 584-II Published on Sunday 16 April 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £24.00 The Environmental Audit Committee The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House. Current membership Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) (Chairman) Ms Celia Barlow, MP (Labour, Hove) Mr Martin Caton, MP (Labour, Gower) Mr Colin Challen, MP (Labour, Morley and Rothwell) Mr David Chaytor, MP (Labour, Bury North) Ms Lynne Featherstone, MP (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green) Mr David Howarth, MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Mr Nick Hurd, MP (Conservative, Ruislip Northwood) Mr Elliot Morley MP (Labour, Scunthorpe) [ex-officio] Mr Mark Pritchard, MP (Conservative, Wrekin, The) Mrs Linda Riordan, MP (Labour, Halifax) Mr Graham Stuart, MP (Conservative, Beverley & Holderness) Ms Emily Thornberry, MP (Labour, Islington South & Finsbury) Dr Desmond Turner, MP (Labour, Brighton, Kempton) Mr Ed Vaizey, MP (Conservative, Wantage) Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) Powers The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally Standing Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Observed Record (1901-2000) and 16 Scenarios (2001-2100)
    A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100). Timothy D. Mitchell, Timothy R. Carter, Philip D. Jones, Mike Hulme and Mark New July 2004 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 55 A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901–2000) and 16 scenarios (2001–2100). Timothy D. Mitchell1, Timothy R. Carter2, Philip D. Jones3, Mike Hulme1 and Mark New4 1 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK 2 Finnish Environment Institute, Box 140, FIN-00251 Helsinki, Finland 3 Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK 4 School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB, UK Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 55 July 2004 Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are commented on by Tyndall researchers, they have not been subject to a full peer review. The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre 1 Abstract The authors describe the construction of a comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate at spatial resolutions of 10 minutes for Europe and 0.5 degrees for the global land surface. Five climate variables are included: temperature, diurnal temperature range, precipitation, vapour pressure, and cloud cover. The set comprises the observed climate record (1901–2000), a control scenario (1901–2100) and 16 scenarios of projected future climate (2001–2100).
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Community Energy in the UK
    The Evolution of Community Energy in the UK Dr Tim Braunholtz-Speight (UKERC Researcher, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester) Dr Sarah Mander (UKERC Researcher, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester) Dr Matthew Hannon (UKERC Researcher, University of Strathclyde Business School) Dr Jeff Hardy (UKERC Researcher, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London) Dr Carly McLachlan (UKERC Researcher, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester) Dr Ed Manderson (UKERC Researcher, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester) Dr Maria Sharmina (UKERC Researcher, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester) September 2018 1 Introduction to UKERC The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) carries out world-class, interdisciplinary research into sustainable future energy systems. It is a focal point of UK energy research and a gateway between the UK and the international energy research communities. Our whole systems research informs UK policy development and research strategy. UKERC is funded by The Research Councils UK Energy Programme. For information please visit: www.ukerc.ac.uk Follow us on Twitter @UKERCHQ Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank members of the Financing Community Energy project Advisory Group, and Jelte Harnmeijer of SCENE Connect, for their comments on an earlier draft of this working paper. 2 Executive Summary This UKERC Working Paper seeks to understand the factors contributing to the emergence, growth and nature of community energy in the UK. It is based on a review of existing data and literature, and focuses on investigating the role of financing mechanisms and business models in the evolution of the community energy sector.
    [Show full text]